' Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of intimation through PCAD. They are hereby proceeded against ex parte.
2. In this Constitutional petition judgment and decree dated 10-9-1978 whereby the appeal filed by respondents Nos.1 to 10 against the judgment and decree dated 17-11-1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge was set aside and the suit of the said respondents decreed, has been challenged.
3. It may be observed at the very outset that a revision petition is competent against the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower. Appellate Court. This writ petition is hereby converted into revision petition. The office shall register the same as such.
4. Respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed a civil suit for declaration that the provisions of MLR 89 whereby scale of entitlement of the claimant was fixed was challenged on the ground that since the entitlement of the said respondents had already been determined by the Central Record Office, therefore, the provisions of the said Martial Law Regulation were not applicable to such entitlement.
In other words the precise argument was that the provisions of the said Martial Law Regulation were not retrospective in operation and the entitlement certificates already issued could not be amended or new scale fixed.
5. The learned trial Court through judgment and decree dated 17-11-1976 held that respondents Nos.1 to 10 were entitled to the allotment of land according to the scale of entitlement fixed under MLR 89 and for the excess they could seek remedy in the form of payment of price of the same.
Feeling aggrieved respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, which has been accepted on the sole ground that Explanation to Para. 5 of MLR No,89 provided that the entitlement determined by the Deputy Claims Commissioner did not fall within the purview of MLR 89. It was held that the said respondents were entitled to the allotment of land according to the original entitlement certificates without limit and if the land was not available they were entitled to cash compensation with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of determination of their claims by the Deputy Claims Commissioner which has been assailed in this revision petition.
6. Paragraph 5 of MLR 89 is specific that the same is also applicable to the entitlement certificates already issued by the Claims Officer. It has been enacted in this paragraph that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any Scheme prepared under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws the entitlement of every claimant shall be determined afresh on the basis of the scales given thereunder. Explanation to this paragraph expressly provides that the term "previous entitlement" means entitlement determined by the Central Record Office under the Previous Scheme. Under paragraph 7 it has been provided that all certificates in Forms QPR-V and UR-V shall stand cancelled and any allotment made on the basis of such certificates shall be cancelled and shall be deemed to have never been issued or made. It also provides that fresh orders for the allotment of land shall be made on the basis of Entitlement Certificates according to the scales provided in paragraph 5 above.
7. From the said express provisions of MLR 89 it is clear that the same was operative retrospectively.
This Regulation was implicitly given retrospective effect by the law-maker. The validity of the said Martial Law Regulation and anything done or to be done under the said Regulation could not be challenged before a Civil Court. The learned lower appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment did not understand the provisions of said Regulation correctly, rather grossly misread the provisions of the said Regulation i,e. That the same were not effective against the entitlement certificates already issued.
8. This revision petition is accepted. The impugned judgment and decree dated 10-9-1978 passed by the learned lower appellate Court is set aside as the learned lower appellate Court has not only committed material irregularity amounting to illegality but also exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in it under the law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.